Visual search and the collapse of categorization.

Categorization researchers typically present single objects to be categorized. But real-world categorization often involves object recognition within complex scenes. It is unknown how the processes of categorization stand up to visual complexity or why they fail facing it. The authors filled this research gap by blending the categorization and visual-search paradigms into a visual-search and categorization task in which participants searched for members of target categories in complex displays. Participants have enormous difficulty in this task. Despite intensive and ongoing category training, they detect targets at near-chance levels unless displays are extremely simple or target categories extremely focused. These results, discussed from the perspectives of categorization and visual search, might illuminate societally important instances of visual search (e.g., diagnostic medical screening).

[1]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[2]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Distinguishing prototype-based and exemplar-based processes in dot-pattern category learning. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  F. Keil,et al.  Efficient visual search by category: Specifying the features that mark the difference between artifacts and animals in preattentive vision , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Journey to the center of the category: the dissociation in amnesia between categorization and recognition. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Search efficiency for multiple targets , 2004 .

[6]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  L. E. Krueger.  The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  A. Markman,et al.  Category use and category learning. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

[11]  F. Gregory Ashby,et al.  Complex decision rules in categorization : contrasting novice and experienced performance , 1992 .

[12]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[13]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[14]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[15]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Thirty categorization results in search of a model. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  L. Squire,et al.  The learning of categories: parallel brain systems for item memory and category knowledge. , 1993, Science.

[17]  M. Posner,et al.  Perceived distance and the classification of distorted patterns. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  P. Dixon,et al.  Conceptual and physical differences in the category effect , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[20]  L. Brooks,et al.  Role of specific similarity in a medical diagnostic task. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  D. Homa,et al.  Limitations of exemplar-based generalization and the abstraction of categorical information. , 1981 .

[22]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  J. A. Deutsch,et al.  On the category effect in visual search , 1977 .

[24]  D. Homa,et al.  Expanding the search for a linear separability constraint on category learning , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[25]  René Zeelenberg,et al.  Priming in implicit memory tasks: prior study causes enhanced discriminability, not only bias. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[26]  T. Palmeri,et al.  Learning About Categories in the Absence of Training: Profound Amnesia and the Relationship Between Perceptual Categorization and Recognition Memory , 1999 .

[27]  The category effect in visual search: Is faster mixed-category search due to the priming of category information? , 1991 .

[28]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  The blossoms and the weeds. , 2005, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[30]  P. Verghese.  Visual Search and Attention A Signal Detection Theory Approach , 2001, Neuron.

[31]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[32]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  The role of priming in conjunctive visual search , 2002, Cognition.

[33]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Prototypes in the Mist: The Early Epochs of Category Learning , 1998 .

[34]  J. P. Thomas,et al.  A signal detection model predicts the effects of set size on visual search accuracy for feature, conjunction, triple conjunction, and disjunction displays , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[35]  Daniel F. Chambliss,et al.  Evolution of conceptual structure , 1979 .

[36]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .